Metabolic Tumor Volume of [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Predicts Short-Term Outcome to Radiotherapy With or Without Chemotherapy in Pharyngeal Cancer

M. K. Chung, H.-S. Jeong, S. G. Park, J. Y. Jang, Y.-I. Son, J. Y. Choi, S. H. Hyun, K. Park, M.-J. Ahn, Y. C. Ahn, H.-J. Kim, Y.-H. Ko (+1 others)
2009 Clinical Cancer Research  
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate whether metabolic tumor volume (MTV) measured from [ 18 F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) predicts short-term outcome to radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with pharyngeal cancers. Experimental Design: The MTVs of primary sites with or without neck nodes were measured in 82 patients. Short-term outcome was assessed using the treatment response evaluation
more » ... y the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and recurrence events during follow-up (complete response/no recurrence or residual disease/recurrence). Results: A total of 64 patients had complete response/no recurrence as of the last follow-up. A cutoff of 40 mL for the MTV was the best discriminative value for predicting treatment response. By univariate analyses, patients with MTV >40 mL showed a significantly lower number of complete response/no recurrence than did patients with MTV ≤40 mL [68.2% versus 87.8%; hazard ratio (HR), 3.34; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.09-10.08; P = 0.03], as is the same in tumor-node-metastasis stage (87.5% for I-II versus 90% for III versus 63.8% for IV; P = 0.02). However, MTV was only a significant predictor of short-term outcome by multivariate analyses (HR, 4.09; 95% CI, 1.02-16.43; P = 0.04). MTV >40 mL indicated a significantly worse DFS than MTV ≤40 mL (HR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.04-11.26;P = 0.04). The standardized uptake value for the primary tumor did not show any correlation with treatment outcome or DFS. Conclusion: MTV has a potential value in predicting short-term outcome and DFS in patients with pharyngeal cancers. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(18):5861-8)
doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-3290 pmid:19737951 fatcat:aackcvga2fhazlp3nkfm7tnlh4